It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Perhaps he just had a practice. ;)) :)>-
That bit always makes me cringe.
Yes but this is the NTTD thread. Which at times has reached a level of cringe beyond that.
I didn’t see that, sorry. To be honest this forum is a bit of a nightmare on a phone with those enormous quotes and the phone’s software doesn’t seem to want to copy half the time on this forum- I just tried to copy shaminal’s post into this one but couldn’t. Do you mind if I ask why it’s important?
What we need is not just to bring back the humour, but to revolutionize it so it makes sense in a modern context. Humour evolves over time, and sight gags which would've worked back in the day dpn't necessarily ellict the same reaction. But thats not to say that you can't still have a Bond film equally funny as it is dramatic and exhilirating.
I understand that, @mtm. Don't worry, I share the same frustrations in regards to the phone situation.
The reason why it's important is because--believe it or not--some folks just want to boost their post count at every opportunity. Like it's a status symbol or some such thing, I don't know. Double posting, triple posting, ..., it's a fast way thousands of posts. (Same with one-word posts or just posting YT or twitter links and nothing else.) We've had members before going like this:
It also makes discussions less organised and with many more "so-and-so commented in..." alerts in your mailbox, it can become annoying fast when one realises it's basically the same member doing all the posting.
Now, of course we understand that not everyone is a post count junkie (@mtm, we know you're not) or a spammer. Unfortunately, if we let too many double posts happen without any comment, there's not a lot we can do about someone who does border on spamming the place up with double, triple, ... posts everywhere. The rules must apply to all. Hence why we try to be fairly strict about this.
It's different when the temporal distance between two consecutive posts is literally days or so.
I hope you understand. Thanks in advance for appreciating the logic behind it all. :)
Oh right okay; thanks for explaining. If anything I’d rather keep my post count low! I’ll try to avoid it but I fear the best way might be to not post at all (on a phone anyway as it’s so glitchy).
I never look at the alerts thing at the top as they get set off by people just quoting, and as the quotes include the whole conversation that makes them a bit pointless.
I believe this is a remnant from the days when a certain post count earned one a certain "rank". Some forums still apply that system today.
...they do all get made by people doing the same jobs, but not the same people, and not the same production companies.
Plus the last two MI films have had the same director, and also there was a bigger gap between Ghost Protocol (2011), and Rogue Nation (2015) than between Skyfall (2012) and Spectre (2015)... meaning that a change of director can usually affect how long a film takes to be made and released... and even more so when a director quits/is fired and a new one has to be hired... There was even a five year gap between MI III (2006) and Ghost Protocol (2011)?
...again each film has their own set of problems so trying to compare the James Bond franchise and the MI franchise is pointless because each film has had its own set of issues, and a film will take as long as it needs to.
And Logan Lucky.
Yeah, true. They still feel like they have to hark back to the Connery and Moore installments. It doesn’t work with Craig. Anyway, I like seriousness in action and then Bond can be light hearted and funny in scenes containing conversations. They’d have their humor in their movies.
I’ve always been about consistency. If they want to have humor everywhere then hire a Mooresque actor with films that revolve around comedy.
Comedy in conversations however is natural. The Bond of the books is funny in the right places and he is not a comedian during the action.
//
Also noticed that one other stuntman, David Newton, doubles for both Rami Malek & David Dencik
I can't see McQuarrie working with PWB. This doesn't mean it would never happen, but McQuarrie seems to be too much of an "old boys network" sort of writer/director.
On a separate note, it appears that MI just nabbed an actress I thought would make a great Bond girl: Pom Klementieff.
I didn't realise SF had been churned out any quicker than the others.
:)) :))
Honestly I'd rather wait two years and have another QoS than wait 3 or 4 to have another entry like AVTAK, DAD, SF or SP.
Damn, now I Know how great mods feel after warning someone :D
So nothing intrinsic to the nature of a Bond film that means it has to have four years between each one then? You’re just talking about specific issues which have slowed it down, and that’s what I’m saying. If MI can avoid these issues then Eon should be able to too if they worked it out. These aren’t ‘different rules’ as you put it, just anecdotal issues. :)
I think it’s less that and more that he writes them himself!
...and yes @Resurrection, will try to keep on topic, just until I've addressed...
...@mtm, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the MI franchise hasn't avoided these issues? When it's had to change directors or has hit problems, it has taken longer to be released, so the MI franchise isn't perfect either, and I've already explained why the franchise are different, and why I believe the James Bond franchise takes more time, but here's a little more on that. In my opinion, the MI franchise is blockbuster action fluff that is just scripting action sequences together, and the James Bond requires more complex storytelling, as well as action. The action in James Bond doesn't dictate the story, making it harder to write.
But that's not what you were talking about. You said
and the two most unsuccessful films of the Craig era are Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, since both had a lower box office than Skyfall and SPECTRE.
Anyway, trying to keep it more on topic, anyone else have any other theories on who David Dencik is playing? I know a lot of people think he's going to be the scientist.
I don't really feel taking more time means a better script. Sure, NTTD is coming out after a long gap, but it's not like it's taken that long because the story they're telling needed that time. There have been all sorts of different setbacks as @mtm put (for once I agree with him!). I mean, when Cary Fukunaga came in they had to accomodate whatever they had to work with to fit his vision.
Not that I think Bond needs to follow M:I timetable to a T, as you well said different production companies different issues, on that I agree.
+1
Except I quite like AVTAK.
I tend to think that, but I think it might be because his name reminds me of the scientist from GoldenEye 64 ;)
Sure, but we've all seen how it's come into its stride since it started its 'second trilogy' if you will and is now in full swing: something Bond could and should have done with the Craig era, but ground to a halt.
Not really..? You just said they have different directors as far as I can see...?
No it doesn't..? What's more complex about it? I'd say the storytelling for both is on the same level of complexity, with MI actually coming quite further ahead with at least the last film- the previous one also being superior to Spectre on a storytelling level, I'd say. There's some clever stuff going on there and the construction of them has been pretty perfect.
I have no interest in ever rewatching Fallout due to how tired and obvious it was. Even with their flaws, I'd gladly take DC's tenure over that. It's more inline with the first four M:I films, which were all unique and interesting.
MI will be gone soon enough when it becomes ludicrous for even real life loony tune Tom to be credible as Ethan Hunt, whereas Bond will have recast and be the one to watch as everyone will want to see how the new guy does.
People making a mess of themselves over the MI films won't be something that has much more of shelf life left, also MI really can't survive without Cruise, I can't stand him personally but he is the hook here and trying to go on without him is unlikely.
SPECTRE was a mess but NTTD I think will realise that MI 6 was very favourably received and did good business and will without copying it deliver something as thrilling and distinctly Bond like.
Bond's personality always will see it leave all other action heroes in it's wake.